February 2023

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728    

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Monday, December 3rd, 2007 07:48 pm
[Poll #1100080]

I was something like thirty-eight when I had a sudden insight that these words might be related. I felt phenomenally stupid for not having seen it before. It's not like I've never studied a Romance language or somehow never in my life encountered that scent for soap.

Then I started telling friends, and so far, they've all responded with variants of "What do you mean, obvious? How the @#$! would you come up with something like that? Weirdo."

This is the kind of thing I wonder about a lot. Is there any relationship between the endings of "lavender" and "provender"? How many pairs of words used to follow the pattern "bear"/"birth" (verb -> vowel change + "th" -> noun) before we dropped those usages, and just how much does "death" count as one of the last remaining examples? If a pantler had charge of the pantry (bread = pan), and a hostler worked at a hostelry, did a butler (bottles, wine) ever at any time in the language have anything like a "butry", and are "gentry" or "gantry" even remotely related to this pattern?

Um, sorry, I'm just kind of like this. :-)
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007 09:07 am (UTC)
If you love that sort of thing, then read Robert Graves's The White Goddess, which uses word similarity arguments to support quite an amazing thesis.

I don't believe most of it. I mean, there are only so many sounds that humans can make, and so some words are going to sound the same but not be related. But it's certainly fun to think about.